PCMark Vantage

PCMark Vantage is the latest benchmark available from Futuremark, and is available only on Windows Vista. Similar to the venerable PCMark05 in its makeup, Vantage modernizes the criteria and test methodology to reflect what users may encounter when running the new Windows OS.

For the HD test suite, the white paper breaks the tests down as:

  • Windows Defender: Windows Defender performs a scan operation, resulting in a read-intensive (99.5% read, 0.5% write) benchmark reflecting a common task in Windows Vista.
  • Gaming Performance: Streaming performance is measured using actual game mechanics found in Alan Wake. This test is nearly all read (99.95% read, 0.05% write) in nature.
  • Windows Photo Gallery: A large collection of images is imported into Windows Photo Gallery. This is the first of the tests which bring write performance into account in a meaningful way, with a roughly 84% read, 16% write ratio.
  • Windows Vista Startup: Simulates Windows Vista start-up operations, producing a test that breaks down to roughly 85% read and 15% write operations.
  • Windows Movie Maker: The first of the Vantage tests which comes close to equally dividing read and write operations (54% read, 46% write), concurrent video performance is tested both for video read and skip performance, as well as video write operations.
  • Windows Media Center: Performing three distinct tasks:
    • SDTV video playback
    • SDTV video streaming to Extender for Windows Media Center
    • SDTV video recording
  • Windows Media Player: Adds music to Windows Media Player. This test reverts to favoring read operations (78% read, 22% write).
  • Application Loading: The following applications are loaded:
    • Microsoft Word 2007
    • Adobe Photoshop CS2
    • Internet Explorer 7
    • Outlook 2007

The total benchmark is roughly 87% reads and 13% writes in nature. We run each test five times per drive, producing a median score that we use for comparison in our results today.



The MTRON unit just destroys the Raptor in the read sensitive tests; the combination of its 0.1ms access time and 108MB/sec sustained transfer rates are too much for the Raptor. However, in the Windows Movie Maker and Windows Media Center tests that balances read and write operations, we see the Raptor performing better thanks to its superior write speeds (77.4MB/sec to 71.9MB/sec). The SSD drives do not perform as well as the Raptor with streaming write operations, a pattern we have noticed in previous testing. Note that performance here concentrates on the storage subsystem and does not represent real-world results; as always, the hard drive is only one part of the entire computer ecosystem. If you are running applications that stress the CPU and GPU, the total performance difference between the Raptor and the MTRON SSD often ends up being negligible.

First Thoughts

Our limited testing today shows both the strengths and weaknesses of this particular drive when comparing it to one of the best performing consumer desktop drives under Vista. The read and write speeds are improved over the previous MTRON drive series, allowing it to further it extend its lead over the Raptor in most benchmarks. However, this drive (actually SSDs in general) still has trouble with large block writes that you typically find in video applications. We will see the same general performance in our video application benchmarks in the full review. The performance in these particular applications is still excellent, but not quite as good as the Raptor yet.

Overall, the MTRON's vastly superior access and random read rates generate top scores in the balance of the PCMark Vantage tests. In fact, in just about every test we have run to date under Vista or XP, this drive is superior to any other drive available in the consumer space and most in the enterprise sector. Add to this the fact that the drive is completely silent, offers significantly better thermals relative to any mechanical drive, and the ability to withstand extreme vibration and shock, and it seems we have a winner.

Now for the bad news: the main drawbacks to this drive are its limited capacity options (16GB to 64GB) and a price tag that will make you think more than twice before whipping out your credit card. The 32GB drive we are testing lists for around $1199 currently, which is significantly better than the $1999 list price of the previous 32GB drive at its introduction. That still comes out to $37.50 per GB of storage - about what you pay for current good DDR2-800 memory! Based upon these two drawbacks, we doubt the high performance SSD drives from MTRON will revolutionize the desktop market anytime soon. However, current pricing trends ($2000 down to $1200 in just a few months) and future capacity growths might make it happen in the next three to five years. Until then, this particular SSD technology is best suited for the road warriors and benchmark junkies. We will see why in our next review.

HD Tach / HD Tune
Comments Locked

48 Comments

View All Comments

  • DougDumitru - Monday, December 3, 2007 - link

    Mtron rates their drives as >140 years @ 50GB write/day. This is 2,555,000 GB (2.5 Petabytes). At 80 MB/sec, this is 32,704,000 seconds or 378 days. So if you are writing linearly at full drive speed 24x7, it takes just over a year to kill the drive.

    I would be hard pressed to imagine an application that does this other than some data logging/capture specialty use. Even with an actively updated data, the drive should still last 5 years. In terms of failure modes, use Raid.
  • tynopik - Tuesday, December 4, 2007 - link

    > In terms of failure modes, use Raid.

    if the failure mode is use of write cycles, all the drives in a raid are going to fail simultaneously . . .
  • DougDumitru - Tuesday, December 4, 2007 - link

    Flash cells wear out statistically. When a chip manufacturer rates a chip, they will say something like "less than 3% of cell rows will error in fewer than 100,000 erase/write cycles". The SSDs themselves have ECC to correct small errors and extra cell rows for when the errors get too bad.

    This is not a case of a counter that hits 100,000 and everything dies. Different drives will last differing amounts of time, so raid should protect you. Just don't wait too long before replacing a drive.
  • DougDumitru - Monday, December 3, 2007 - link

    A lot of people miss what is happening with Flash SSD write performance. When you do linear writes, the drives are very fast. When you do random writes, they are very very slow. How slow depends on the drive. This Mtron drive does about 125 writes/sec for "small" writes (up to about 64K blocks). This is actually very good compared with other drives. Other Flash SSDs that we have tested range from 13 to 40 writes/sec. We even tested one MLC Flash SSD that does 3.3 writes/sec (which is floppy speed).

    You can look at detailed benchmarks for this drive both single and Raid-5 at:

    http://mtron.easyco.com/news/papers/07-12-01_mtron...">http://mtron.easyco.com/news/papers/07-12-01_mtron...

    Bottom line is that, by themselves, Flash SSDs have trouble with small random writes. This in inherent in the organization of the flash cells themselves. If you want to see a "fix" for this, visit:

    http://managedflash.com">http://managedflash.com

    Doug Dumitru
    CTO EasyCo LLC
  • Gary Key - Monday, December 3, 2007 - link

    I know we really limited the benchmark results, but the full review will have significantly more content plus RAID results. We wanted to get the base numbers out after receiving a flood of emails about this drive series and others. Power consumption was 0.55W at idle and hit 2.92W at full load under the video streaming tests. PCMark05 total score was 15941 for the MSP7000 32GB drive, 15343 for the previous 32GB drive, and 7546 for the Raptor. We just received an updated Samsung 64GB SSD drive and will have the MTRON 64GB shortly. Also, Super Talent just sent their new high-speed 256GB SSD drive for review. I just got the final specs and it appears the Super Talent drive will offer read speeds around 60 MB/sec and write speeds around 42 MB/sec, not too bad.
  • AnnihilatorX - Monday, December 3, 2007 - link

    When will Intel fix the ICH8/9 chipset problem?

    I am reluctant to really buy the X38/P35 platform because of this
    But I really don't have much choice if I am going for QX6600.
  • Gary Key - Monday, December 3, 2007 - link

    I hope to have "final" answers from Intel this week, we have been on them for some time now. We thought it was drivers at first, but we have been through three driver sets without any changes to date. I just received a 945GM/ICH7 mobile platform and will see if that works differently. Another website did not have problems with this setup so we will start testing tonight with the same hardware.
  • userfriendly - Sunday, December 9, 2007 - link

    i'd like to second the question of AnnihilatorX. maybe this issue just isn't important for more than a tiny minority, true. but that doesn't help much if one belongs to that exact minority. <_<

    otherwise, can someone tell me why i can't just plug a penryn quadcore into an amd 790fx motherboard? (i'm only half kidding, this would be my dream team right now. alas...)
  • AnnihilatorX - Sunday, December 9, 2007 - link

    Would you get the same problem if you buy an P35 board but use the SATA ports from a SATA PCI-E bridge chip, e.g. Marvell?
  • jackedupandgoodtogo - Monday, December 3, 2007 - link

    This SSD would be perfect as an OS/Application installation drive, while using a Raptor as the data drive. Fast read for booting and loading of apps, fast saves/writing using the Raptors as a data drive.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now